"The largest death toll ever in the U.S. from twisters was on March 18, 1925 when 747 people were killed in storms that raged through Missouri, Illinois and Indiana. In that outbreak, a single, 219-mile-long tornado killed 695 people."

I think we all remember how much Missouri, Illinois and Indiana were in the camp of the climate pollution deniers back in 1925. Served them right.

@Coketown, that is a terribly written news article that conflates the increase in tornadoes observed with one particular event with potential increases due to climate change (or not). The translation from French to English wasn't very elegantly done either.

“Given that global warming is unequivocal,” climate scientist Kevin Trenberth cautioned the American Meteorological Society in January of this year, “the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming rather than the inane statements along the lines of ‘of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming.’”

So all (bad) weather can now fairly be blamed on mankind. It's scientific!

@madisonman: Why don't you find it instead of bitching about the article?

I was only interested in the supplied quotes, which seemed to survive the translation intact. If you need a coherent, elegant narrative of impeccable translation you're free of use Google News to dig one up.

(The Crypto Jew)If you believe that cause and effect, then you have to believe AIDS punishes sinners.

No you mouf-breath’n Bozo, AIDS is a Biologic Weapon constructed to kill Africans, and was created by the CIA…it has spread, in the US, amongst Homosexuals, because Ronald Regan HATED homosexuals and the GOP wanted them dead…..

I expect this kind of thing from DemocraticUnderground or Kos (especially the comments section). But I expect better from Think Progress. I don't expect to agree with them, but I don't expect them to be so vile.

I worked part-time for a UW meteorology professor back in the 80s who specialized in tornadoes. This was right after the Barneveld, WI tornado. He seemed to think there was a scientific difference between "killer" tornadoes and other tornadoes above and beyond the F-scale. I never quite got that. (I think it was inspired by media attention).

If the Barneveld tornado's path was a half-mile farther north, it might not have killed anyone and would not have a name.

No doubt Wednesday's storms were extreme and unusual, but the death rate may be due more to bad luck and southern population migration than to global warming. Duh.

Tornadoes are always going to happen much more often in the South, even if they all elect liberal Democrats and even if there weren't any global warming.

Despite the strawmen, no one is saying that "all bad weather can be blamed on global warming" or that tornadoes didn't happen before the Industrial Revolution: commenters on this thread accusing scientists of saying such things either can't read, or lie about what they read.

Putting more heat in the earth's atmosphere makes more energy available to produce storms and snow. This is not scientifically controversial; it is trivially true.

Dusty: It's the cows man.Bill: What about the cows?Dusty: The Farts.Bill: What?Dusty: It's the cow farts that are causing global warming. Which is causing the Twisters.Bill: Look. We got cows.(Twister,1996)

Putting more heat in the earth's atmosphere makes more energy available to produce storms and snow. This is not scientifically controversial; it is trivially true

Pardon me, I am not a meteorologist, but I always thought that storms were caused by differences in temperature, not heat in and of itself. I spent a fair amount of time in the Persian Gulf region, it was hotter than hell there, but thunderstorms and tornadoes were notably absent.

First that "global warming" is unequivocal. If we agree that the earth is a couple of degrees warmer than before, this is certainly an accurate, factual, statement.

So is the one that is essentially that the couple of degrees of warmth can not be separated from any consideration of the weather. It's a variable that has to be in there.

But scientists are pedants by nature. He fusses because people want to say that global warming isn't causing any of the bad weather, that it can't be laid at the feet of global warming...

"Despite the strawmen, no one is saying that "all bad weather can be blamed on global warming" or that tornadoes didn't happen before the Industrial Revolution: commenters on this thread accusing scientists of saying such things either can't read, or lie about what they read."

The guy being quoted said :" inane statements along the lines of ‘of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming.’” So he's saying pretty clearly that we can, most certainly, attribute "particular weather events" to global warming. And what do you think he means by "all weather events are affected by global warming,"?

I don't for a moment think he means that if we didn't have global warming we wouldn't have killer tornadoes, only that you *must* include all variables.

But who is going to be responsible for morons who start in with the implicit to nearly explicit claim that what that guy said does IN FACT prove that the bad weather and the deaths of those people is IN FACT attributable to global warming, or in this case "global pollution?"

Defend scientists all you like, but the rest of us have been having weather as proof of AGW shoved in our faces by scientifically illiterate local newsies and "green" socialists for years now.

"no one is saying that "all bad weather can be blamed on global warming""

climate scientist Kevin Trenberth sure seems to be saying exactly this. Or else how do you interpret, “the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming rather than the inane statements along the lines of ‘of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming.’

“Given that global warming is unequivocal,” climate scientist Kevin Trenberth cautioned the American Meteorological Society in January of this year, “the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming rather than the inane statements along the lines of ‘of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming.’”

And this guy is supposedly a "scientist". The null hypothesis would lead to the exact opposite conclusion, that there is no correlation between to particular phenomena with out there being evidence of it.

This guy isn't a scientist, he's a shameless hippie idiot that went to school for a while.

Don't kid yourselves that this point of view is silly nonsense. It is Obama's EPA's official approach to destroy America. This Mafia/EPA says that we must turn over all economic life to windmill makers or we become legitimate targets for arrest and execution. Anybody ready to see Trump get that smooth Lies-R-Us operation before it gets us?

"By this I gather they're excited that the storms could do what they can only fantasize about doing at this point."

I think this is closer to truth than is comfortable.

Remember the guy (probably a community college professor, the real revenge fantasy kooks always seem to be, nothing against community colleges but...) who was warning that the "blue states" needed to have laws in place to keep the refugee red state deniers from ruining everything when global warming flooded all the red states?

I remember that.

And the guy (again, community college, IIRC) who wanted to put sterilizing agents in the water of first world countries.

Or the guy (again! IIRC) who talked about bird flu and 80% population loss?

THERE IS NO TRUTH IN ANY "FACTS" REPORTED BY THE WARMIST SCIENCE OPERATION. None OF IT IS TRUE. NONE OF IT. They faked their data and fed it into rigged computer programs to get the excuse to steal Trillions of dollars.

@Sixty Grit: Gabe - who is putting this "heat" into the atmosphere? How do you propose stopping them from doing it?

By increasing the carbon dioxide concentration humans are indirectly heating the earth by changing its energy absorption. I don't have very many good answers to stop it, best thing I can think of is to build shitloads of nuclear plants.

Pardon me, I am not a meteorologist, but I always thought that storms were caused by differences in temperature, not heat in and of itself. I spent a fair amount of time in the Persian Gulf region, it was hotter than hell there, but thunderstorms and tornadoes were notably absent.

A difference in temperature is what can convert heat to mechanical energy. The more heat available, the higher the temperature, the more energy is available for storms.

Since I'm talking about the entire climate, and not saying that if you heat up a small area of the Earth you invariably get storms and hurricanes, I'm not sure why the Persian Gulf is relevant here. Of course they do have extreme storm events there, don't they? Not hurricanes, but powerful sandstorms?

@SPImmortal:I think you might want to check up on global warming theory. It doesn't have anything to do with "putting more heat in the earth's atmosphere". Frankly that sounds like a third grader's explanation."

In third grade did you learn what temperature is and how it can be raised? It needs an input of energy, either heat or work. Since the Earth's atmosphere is not being compressed in giant piston-and-cylinder I think we have to conlude it is warming because it is absorbing more heat.

And I'm not sure how making the atmosphere hotter would contribute to more snowfall. It seems stupid and counterintuitive rather than trivially true.

In third grade did you learn that snow falls from the sky, and that water needs to evaporate, to get in to the sky, and that evaporation requires heat?

Increased snow in one location requires increased heat in another, to provide the energy to evaporate the water.

I suppose Trenberth's dilemma is that whenever a big weather event happens, the media and AGW enthusiasts call up and ask if it was caused by global warming. What are they supposed to say? Yes, no, we don't know?

A difference in temperature is what can convert heat to mechanical energy. The more heat available, the higher the temperature, the more energy is available for storms.

Again, if it the difference in temprature that causes storms, then a global rise of, say, 3 degrees, wouldn't cause any more storms than before because it is the difference not the absolute temperature that is important.

If your statement were true, the hottest places would also have the most severe storms and that is clearly not the case.

Anyway, before I just start being a complete jerk to everyone, all the weather, good and bad, is affected by global warming and Synova's point about half-literate greens and journalists is spot on.

My pet peeve is people saying we can do it all with wind and solar. Really people do say that to me, and I light into them with the same ardor with which I light into people who say snow isn't caused by heat.

Let me add that the sentiment expressed by Think Progress is not only repulsive, but ignorant: might not have been clear enough about that when I first said it. It's everyone's problem and everyone's fault and there aren't any easy solutions.

@Maguro:If your statement were true, the hottest places would also have the most severe storms and that is clearly not the case.

No, you are totally wrong about that. If the earth were at a hot, uniform temperaure, there wouldn't BE weather at all, no matter how hot it was.

Temperature differences from place to place create storms. Increasing the average temperature increases the total heat energy available, but there still needs to be tempreature differences to convert that heat into storms. VERY simple physics.

@Maguro:Again, if it the difference in temprature that causes storms, then a global rise of, say, 3 degrees

You're confusing changes with time and changes with position.

At one given instant, the temperature differences over the surface determine the weather. At one given instant, the total heat in the atmosphere, which is proportional to the average temperature, is what is available to produce weather.

I've seen the notion floated that States who have representatives that vote against "climate change" initiatives (which can be construed to just about anything) are to be denied FEMA, disaster relief funds, etc., in the event of a natural disaster.

Tell me, who doesn't think it hasn't crossed the mind of at least some of the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus?

“Given that global warming is unequivocal,” climate scientist Kevin Trenberth cautioned the American Meteorological Society in January of this year, “the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming rather than the inane statements along the lines of ‘of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming.’”

The congressional delegations of these states — Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, Virginia, and Kentucky — overwhelmingly voted to reject the science that polluting the climate is dangerous. They are deliberately ignoring the warnings from scientists.

All weather events ARE affected by global warming. It IS trite to say that no individual event can be individually attributed.

Here's an analogy: a person is too fat. Which doughnut made him too fat? You can't point to any INDIVIDUAL one. It's trite to say that "of course no individual doughnut can make a person obese", isn't it? Rather, your obesity has something to do with ALL the doughnuts you've eaten, doesn't it?

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

So I live in Rhode Island. We'll never get hit by an earthquake. We're at little risk of a forest fire. A hurricane is a once-in-a-generation experience. Forget funnel clouds. And we're the lead-paint epicenter of the United States. Thank you very much.

Some people hate everything. Today is the day to hate the south. As soon as more traditional pollution is back in the news those folks can hate the rustbelt again.

That's what the models are for. No two regions on earth have exactly the same climate and no two are going to respond in exactly the same way, because they all feed back into each other. That's why they have the climate modelling groups.

“the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming rather than the inane statements along the lines of ‘of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming.’”

Huh. So what about all the terrible weather events that have NOT happened? Are those attributable to climate change too? I note that we weren't hit with a devastating hurricane last year. Thank goodness for global warming! Right? Or does global warming magically produce ONLY bad weather?

I think something that's missed by the AWG enthusiasts is this. What is an AWG skeptic (or "denier")?

- Some don't believe the earth is warming.- Some believe the earth is warming but don't believe it's manmade.- Some believe it's manmade but don't think it's reversible (think India, China, Brazil).- Some believe it's reversible but don't think the UN or US gov't has workable solutions.- Some think warming is a net positive for humanity.

These could be parsed up a hundred different ways and could go on and on. The ones I think of as non-thinking boneheads are those who take Gore as face value or believe what the NYT tells them. There a lot of those and they live on the Left. Hence, no respect for the Left.

It is my opinion that good, thoughtful people fought for centuries -- eons -- to create what is at worst a very noble lie that there is a God or there are a number of gods who care about us, who want us to do the right thing. I believe these people worked against a then-traditional view that the weather was punishment from a pre-god earth god for human misdeeds.

Then, a bunch of people who were and are truly idiots decided, for reasons that are unclear to me, to defeat and banish the thing that is at worst a noble lie. And they are now left with the sad, sorry, depressing view that weather is punishment from an earth god for human misdeeds.

A lot of Judeo-Christians could point to various Old Testament prophets, Matthew 24 or Revelation and say this was all foretold long before "science" discovered global warming, which is just a Satanic cover story to convince us all that these are not Judgments of God. After all, the scriptures don't claim that none of the righteous will be killed or suffer, just that they won't be cast into Hell. What would that say about the role Think Progress is playing in all this?

Wow, if it wasn't funny as most folks have pointed out, it would be totally sad.

I like Seven Machos point about a 'noble lie' (i.e. 'God') that has been systematically eliminated by the left, only to be 'brought back' in another form, this time as a 'mother earth' god taking revenge on the consumers of the world.

The left is seriously deranged if they expect anyone to believe this hocus pocus. Think Progress is really nothing more than a bunch of flat earth kooks. I say let them continue to make asses of themselves, they are a good example for those really paying attention.

But that answer wouldn't be true. Which cigarette gave you lung cancer? Which doughnut made you obese? Which part in your car is responsible for its fuel efficiency? When you insist that no one knows which tornadoes where were produced by global warming, you are in the same fallacy.

The total climate responds to warming in cimplicated ways, because all the local climates feed in to each other. That's why there have to be models.

I think something that's missed by the AWG enthusiasts is this.

It's not missed at all. Anyone who has argued with climate "skeptics" knows this perfectly well. It's the same with creationists, birthers, truthers, and antivaccine activists.

That fact that none of the "skeptics" can agree on what is going on, if it's NOT global warming, demonstrates that they are not doing any science of their own. That they supress their incompatible differences to join together against climate science shows they're not interested in being consistent. The only point is to spread uncertainty.

Their position collectively amounts to "If we don't know everything, that's the same as knowing nothing." Which is simply false.

@Seven Machos:And they are now left with the sad, sorry, depressing view that weather is punishment from an earth god for human misdeeds.

There might be people who treat climate science as a substitute religion, and the jackasses who tried to connect earthquakes to global warming likely fall in this category. But the fact that some people abuse the science does invalidate the science.

For example, almost all people nowadays reject eugenics as an abuse of science. But genes and heredity still exist, don't they?

But humans have been screwing up their environments as long as they have been around--and not only humans, beavers can do quite a number when they out forth the effort. Green plants nearly killed off every other form of life on earth when they showed up.

ANY organism can screw up its environment. And anyone who thinks humans or industrialization are somehow unique in this regard hasn't thought it through. The "balance of nature" isn't some grand design that actively perpetuates itself; it's just a name for the equilibrium reached after millions of years of organisms trashing each other's environments.

Global warming isn't going to kill off life on earth; it's going to kill some, inconvenience others, and benefit others as well.

@Sofa King:So what about all the terrible weather events that have NOT happened? Are those attributable to climate change too?

Which cigarette gave you lung cancer? What about all those people who smoke and don't get it? What about those people who don't smoke and do get it? Ridiculous to think that cigarettes ever gave anyone cancer, right?

@Sixty Grit:Ah yes, the climate models, all of which end up with a hockey stick at the end and DOOM! DOOOOOOM I TELLS YA!!!

Thanks for playing, but you are clearly in the thrall of leftist luddites.

First, I don't believe that you actually know anything whatever about climate models. Second, I'm not a luddite or a lefty. I'm a libertarian who want to build more nuclear plants. Reasonable people can disagree about policies, even though the Left seems rarely willing to acknowledge this.

But we don't get to make up our own reality. Since the Right has collectively decided to pretend that climate science is invalid, there are very few people left to lobby for free-market responses to global warming and the ground has been ceded entirely to command-and-control types.

There is global cooling underway since a peak warm year 13 years ago. Sea levels are falling, not rising. This winter's highest snow fall in 100 years happened in LESS HUMID AIR only because of freezing cold air. Feed that real set of facts into any computer that is not rigged by the UN Crime Syndicate, and tell us whether harmless trace gas CO2 is dangerous.

"The total climate responds to warming in cimplicated ways, because all the local climates feed in to each other. That's why there have to be models."

By your own admission they are attempting to model complicated systems. Their ability to do so simply doesn't pass the smell test. Tell me you ran a mile in 4 min 30 sec and I'll accept that it's possible, if unlikely. Tell me that you did it in 1 min 30 sec and I'll know you're wrong. I don't for one minute believe that climate is so well understood that it can be modeled in such a way as to predict with any confidence whatsoever what it will be like in 100 years.

Cause and effect can be incredibly tricky to demonstrate in relatively simple systems; in complex systems it is exponentially more difficult. And yet, The Models (caps intended; imagine me genuflecting as well) purport to show us the effect decades from now on just such a complicated system.

We have a scientist (I'm sorely tempted to write "supposed" but who am I to judge? Maybe I'm the one full of shit, a question more climate scientists should ask of themselves) declaring that the null hypothesis (i.e., the default position, the explanation assumed to be correct until proven otherwise) is that global warming is responsible for unusual weather events. Trenberth is begging the question when he begins his statement with "Given." It is not "given," sir. It is not.

The earth may be warming, or it may not be. But in spite of the dogged insistence of all those who assert it as fact (and Gabriel Hanna, you are very reasonable and clearly well-informed, but I think you are wrong on this), it has not been proven to my satisfaction. My opinion doesn't matter. Just think of me as Benjamin the donkey. I'll continue to watch this unfold, knowing full well that no one will care about my opinion. I know someone whose area of expertise is measuring things (temperature included). I know his opinion on this, and he has the same basic Benjamin-the-donkey attitude that I have adopted. He can (and does, to anyone who will listen) slice up the very concept of temperature measurement to the point that anyone not convinced of their own brilliance can clearly see that it is foolish to think we have anything like a clear idea of "global temperature" data (outside of the past 30 or so years).

"Which cigarette gave you lung cancer? What about all those people who smoke and don't get it? What about those people who don't smoke and do get it? Ridiculous to think that cigarettes ever gave anyone cancer, right?"

I think there is an error in the analogies you're making. Two or three degrees hotter isn't the same as cigarette after cigarette over decades. One is sort of concentrating all the influence to one point but with a slightly warmer globe it's not concentrated at all but applying that very small influence over all of the systems involved.

So it can't be "which two degrees caused a killer blizzard." It's which blizzard was caused by the two degrees? That's ridiculous, of course, that two degrees would cause one blizzard and not another. It makes up the conditions of all the blizzards and it caused none of them.

Also, the notion that adding energy automatically results in harsher conditions seems to me to be an assumption. It seems logical enough, but without some corroborating evidence I wouldn't accept it. Science is about what can be proven. The world *has* been warmer. When it was warmer, how much more harsh was it?

It has always been my (perhaps incorrect) understanding that tornados are spawned when warm moist air collides with cold air--now this seems to me to be a function of local weather patterns rather than any sustained long term climate change.

But I am an an epidemiologist rather than a climate (versus weather) specialist.

I was reminded here of an article I was trying to read yesterday or so, about Sen. Tom Udahl of NM, who is apparently picking up where AlGore left off. Here you have a guy with impeccable environmental credentials, but essentially no scientific training whatsoever, nor any real training outside the government. And he kept talking about that the models predicted this, and predicted that. That with a warmer global climate, the models predicted that NM would dry up, etc.

And, maybe those models are correct. But unlikely.

One of the basic problems is that the formal publication of all those models invariably include numerous provisos, assumptions, and limitations. And, the AlGores of this world lightly skip over them. Reading scientific articles carefully is just not something taught in journalism school, or to English, History, Poli Sci, etc. majors.

The reality is that these models can only be as accurate as their assumptions and data let them be, and in the case of climatic modeling, that isn't very close at all.

The data is grossly inaccurate for a number of reasons, including that we haven't been able to accurately measure temperature for all that long, that much of the Earth has not been measured, or at least not consistently, that urban (etc.) heat island effect is badly handled, and the primary data sets have been repeatedly fudged in ways that cannot be reproduced, etc.

Plus, many of the models seem to rely on a level of sensitivity to CO2 that has not been borne out by more recent testing and analysis (they seem to assume an increasing sensitivity of temperature to CO2, and the reality, at least now, appears to be a decreasing sensitivity to CO2 as the concentration increases).

So, whenever I hear: “Given that global warming is unequivocal...”, I know that I am being scammed. The more people who look into the data and the models, the less consensus there is. And anyone who says something like that, above, is most likely trying to forestall debate that they are likely not to win.

Also, the notion that adding energy automatically results in harsher conditions seems to me to be an assumption. It seems logical enough, but without some corroborating evidence I wouldn't accept it. Science is about what can be proven. The world *has* been warmer. When it was warmer, how much more harsh was it?

An alternate hypothesis is that the amount of weather variation and anomalies, such as tornadoes, hurricanes, etc. will decrease, not increase. They result from a temperature differential, and there is some reason to believe that there would be less of such in a warmer global climate.

Part of this is that in a warmer global climate, the Earth wouldn't warm uniformly, but rather, the colder climes would get warmer more than the warmer ones would. And, this would tend to reduce, not increase, the temperature differentials between different parts of the Earth.

And I have to wonder about the predictions of increasing hurricanes caused by (alleged) global warming). IIRC such predictions have not been borne out over the past 5-8 years. Does this mean the model is not predictive?

and can someone please tell me what the ideal temperture of the earth is? Its been a hell of a lot colder and fairly recently in geological time; and presumabably apparently a lot hotter in earlier geological time.

@synova:So it can't be "which two degrees caused a killer blizzard." It's which blizzard was caused by the two degrees? That's ridiculous, of course, that two degrees would cause one blizzard and not another. It makes up the conditions of all the blizzards and it caused none of them.

A better analogy would be, "Prove which employees lost their jobs thanks to the President's policies. Sure, some people lost money and some people lost jobs, but that's ALWAYS been true. And some people made more money, and some people got jobs, so how can the Presidents policies be bad for the economy?"

Most of the commenters here have no trouble spotting that THAT fallacy, yet the fall for it every time if the subject is climate.

Also, the notion that adding energy automatically results in harsher conditions seems to me to be an assumption.

Lucky for me I said nothing of the sort, isn't it? What I've been saying, ALL ALONG, is that it makes more energy AVAILABLE to PRODUCE "harsher conditions", but with the CAVEAT that since the climate is a complicated system, it's not always and everywhere invariably harsher.

Similarly in a recession, not everybody loses their money and not everybody loses their jobs, right? Why is it so clear to you when put that way?

The data is grossly inaccurate for a number of reasons, including that we haven't been able to accurately measure temperature for all that long, that much of the Earth has not been measured, or at least not consistently, that urban (etc.) heat island effect is badly handled, and the primary data sets have been repeatedly fudged in ways that cannot be reproduced, etc.

Just about everything you said here is false.

For example, "urban heat islnad effect" does not affect the temperature data significantly. Do you know how they now that? Because the OCEAN temperatures do the same thing as the LAND temperatures. Data unadjusted for urban areas is nearly indistinguishabnle from that adjusted.

Observe, sir:

http://clearclimatecode.org/gistemp-urban-adjustment/

I presume you will drop this example in the future.

Everything else you heard from climate "skeptics" is similarly misleading. traditionalguy's canard about the last 13 years being a "cooling trend" just because 1998 was the warmest year, was the first misleading statement I caught the "skeptics" in. Until then I had considered myself a skeptic.

But almost everything they say about temperature records and modeling is equally misleading.

@Bruce Hayden:An alternate hypothesis is that the amount of weather variation and anomalies, such as tornadoes, hurricanes, etc. will decrease, not increase. They result from a temperature differential, and there is some reason to believe that there would be less of such in a warmer global climate.

Based on what? Are the skeptics running their own climate models and getting this result? Do point to the papers, if you have time.

@Roger J:and can someone please tell me what the ideal temperture of the earth is? Its been a hell of a lot colder and fairly recently in geological time; and presumabably apparently a lot hotter in earlier geological time.

a) Nothing in climate science assumes an ideal temperature of the earth, or requires one, or predicts one. The temperature is whatever it is now, plus whatever it goes up by as a result of adding greenhouse gases, plus whatever the sun is doing.

They're not saying that the earth was NEVER hotter or colder. They're not saying that the Earth has to have on exact temperature or everyone dies.

They are syaing that, if you put a bunch of CO2 in the air, all else being equal, eventually the earth heats up.

The reason this is a problem is that we are USED to this temperature, and changing it enough is going to require expensive adjustments on our part. Of course, AVOIDING changing it will ALSO require expensive adjustments.

The question is which is MORE expensive? Climate scientists and the people who accept their results are the only people trying to figure this out.

The skeptics are doing nothing but spreading FUD. They don't make their own models, they don't collect temperatures, they don't figure out how to add the temperatures up, they don't propose alternatives and test them scientifically using models that they wrote--for example those who claim to think the sun is responsible don't run models to show that it is, and climate scientists already HAVE and know that the results don't come out.

They claim scientists are doing everything wrong but they don't explain WHAT they should do differntly and they don't try to do it themselves, and they can't come up with any alternative that they can agree on that could explain the facts. Again, like creationists and anti-vaxers.

They only have these arguments:

If we don't everything we might as well know nothing.

Guilt by association (socialists and greens)

Other than flat out lying about the data and models, that is. But the professional "skeptics" are careful to mislead, for example by saying that since 1998 was hotter than 2010 we are in a "coolong trend".

The skeptics are doing nothing but spreading FUD. They don't make their own models, they don't collect temperatures, they don't figure out how to add the temperatures up, they don't propose alternatives and test them scientifically using models that they wrote--for example those who claim to think the sun is responsible don't run models to show that it is, and climate scientists already HAVE and know that the results don't come out.

So they collected a few temperatures and constructed a few models. They've also thrown in 100% with the socialist greens. Don't tell me there is *not* an anti-capitalist agenda. There are no definitive conclusions to be drawn from the CO2 models as of yet, but people like you *want* those conclusions to implement your Communist agenda.

Climate scientists have decided that climate science is invalid. They have never told the truth, so why are we supposed to believe them now?

They have not been lying, they have been lied ABOUT.

I gave some examples and told you to check for yourself like I did.

For example, they say that because 1998 was hotter than 2010 that makes a "cooling trend". That's a lie.

They say that urban temperature stations skew the results. That;s another lie. The correction for many stations has been found that they read too cold, in fact, and even if you don't correct the land temperatures only change by hundredths of a degree.

"They are syaing that, if you put a bunch of CO2 in the air, all else being equal, eventually the earth heats up."

And this is an assertion that has not been proven. You can say that CO2 has gone up, temperatures have gone up (again, we only have truly reliable data on this over a few decades; I strongly disagree with the proposition that the government should be making policy decisions so heavily based on proxy measurements), but you can't prove cause and effect. A simple understanding of vapor-liquid equilibria will tell you it is just as reasonable to assert that CO2 increase is effect rather than cause.

As for the models, do the feedback mechanisms that are asserted to drive this effect of CO2 arise as an emergent property from these models, or are they programmed into them? If they are programmed into the models, then they are begging the question. Honestly, I have neither the time nor the inclination to switch careers and become a climatologist just to determine whether their models are correct or not. I intuitively know these models can't possibly be accurate enough to reliably predict the behavior of such a complex system 100 years from now. I need not become an expert in track and field to know you have never run a mile in 1 min 30 sec.

And none of this even gets into the issue of the world's leading proponent of AGW being a dangerous lunatic. Anyone who calls for trials of skeptics (and Hansen has done just that) should frankly be considered a menace to the entire scientific endeavor. You and I can agree to disagree, but apparently I cannot do so with Hansen.

First, it's VERY simple physics that carbon dioxide absorbs IR, and that temperature rises with increased absorption. The extra heat absorbed by the CO2 can't vanish, it has to go into the atmosphere. The atmosphere can't get rid of it without, in the end, radiating it into space, though the heat have many adventures on the way. The basic idea was worked out a hundred years ago, and we know a lot more about it now.

As for the models, do the feedback mechanisms that are asserted to drive this effect of CO2 arise as an emergent property from these models, or are they programmed into them? If they are programmed into the models, then they are begging the question.

Emergent properties of the climate models include El Nino and ocean currents, did you know that?

Climate models are very simple simulations of sections of the atmosphere, with the same simple calculations done over and over. It is very, very easy to find this stuff out. The feedback is due to the physics of the atmosphere, just like the motion of coupled pendulums involves feedback into each other.

Honestly, I have neither the time nor the inclination to switch careers and become a climatologist just to determine whether their models are correct or not.

So you don't know, and don't WANT to know...

I intuitively know these models can't possibly be accurate enough to reliably predict the behavior of such a complex system 100 years from now.

"But you are totally happy with running an uncontrolled experiment on the only atmosphere we currently possess?"

Your condescending tone and strawman demolitions aside (e.g., "Your argument is "we don't know everything = we know nothing" + "I don't understand it so it can't be true"."), you're totally happy with running an uncontrolled experiment on the only economy we currently possess? On the basis of computer models? And I'll note that by your logic, a great many human activities are uncontrolled experiments. Many somethings must be done.

So tell me, will you flatly proclaim the science is settled and something must be done? You now come across to me as someone who deeply resents my inquiring about such things as whether the feedback mechanisms were programmed into the models, or whether CO2 levels are cause or effect (or both), etc.

I have many questions about such things, and contrary to what I suspect you think, I am willing to concede that the proponents of AGW could be correct and something must be done. But before I do, I need to see the evidence. Since the crux of the matter seems to be the predictions from the computer models, please convince me these models are highly likely to accurately predict global climate 100 years from now. Or don't (but I really do believe I am teachable). Until SOMEBODY convinces me, I will adopt the proper scientific position of skepticism. If that somebody has to be me (i.e., I must become a climatolgist), it's not likely to happen, as I have many other things to tend to.

If you take the time and trouble to at least read what's at the first link, feel free to skip the scolding that follows.

You now come across to me as someone who deeply resents my inquiring about such things as whether the feedback mechanisms were programmed into the models, or whether CO2 levels are cause or effect (or both), etc.

I don't resent that you inquire, I resent that you don't make any effort to find anything out, and reject what people try to teach you. That's not inquiry. Inquiry is when you actively seek answers, not when you passively-agressively spread FUD and say "I'm only asking questions".

People who think vaccines cause autism, people who think 9/11 was a an inside job, they do exactly what you do--they do the same thing. They repeat falsehoods with a question mark on the end, and then say that their opponents are dogmatists who oppose their asking questions.

"People who think vaccines cause autism, people who think 9/11 was a an inside job, they do exactly what you do--they do the same thing."

I knew you were thinking that about me (I asked myself: "Am I simply one of those 'just asking questions' idiots?"), but they don't do exactly what I do. I ask questions as an attempt to get the process of learning going in my own mind. As questions get answered, some answers don't seem satisfactory, which leads to more questions (and eventually a sore spot is hit, and you know then you have reached a boundary in that person's mind; once established and identified, that boundary can serve as a useful reminder of the limitations of the proposition being questioned). Answers that are satisfactory also lead to follow-up questions, as once you have become convinced that a proposition is correct you should then attack that proposition in every way you can. In this way the validity of the proposition can be strengthened. It is also useful in anticipating arguments that will be deployed by skeptics and testing the validity of those criticisms. When I am told the science is settled (which you have not done, but many others have), I know I am dealing with a person who rejects the validity of any criticism. The problem with those sorts of people is that there is so much they know which just isn't so. I myself have heard arguments against AGW put forth that I rejected quite easily (e.g., CO2 is only a small percentage of the atmosphere and therefore can't have such a large effect; by that logic 10 milligrams of ricin shouldn't hurt you), but I don't believe there are no valid and serious criticisms of climate modeling (and the wisdom of using it for policy decisions).

I will read the links. I promise you that. Intellectual integrity demands it of me.

I can't ask for more than that. And I don't agree with the policy proposals either. The only one I put out, building lots of nuclear plants, would involve a) lots of one time carbon emissions from the concrete, and b) serious economic dislocation like any Keynesian-type massive government spending. But I figure if the government HAS to take our money and spend it for us, nuclear plants are the least objectionable.

But as I said earlier, the Right has abdicated on this issue by pretending it doesn't exist, and so all we get is green fantasies and top-down proposals.

I'm not sure there really is much to be done, excpet try to mitigate the consequences. We are already stuck with warming if we give up all fossil fuels tomorrow.